The proposal was exhibited and notified for 21 days. In response, four (4) submissions were received to the proposed development, in which one (1) was later withdrawn subject to design amendments and further clarification.
The issues raised in the three (3) submissions are summarised and addressed below.
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Concerns regarding overshadowing due to the height, bulk and scale which negatively impact upon the amenity and built character of the surrounding area.
The proposed dwelling complies with the maximum 9 metre height limit permitted under the Hills Local Environmental Plan (LEP 2012).
The dwelling proposed at lodgement stage detailed a ridge level of RL 109.00. Subject to amendments made throughout the assessment process, the revised dwelling height details a ridge level RL 108.700 (300mm reduction) in an effort to reduce the overall dwelling height, overshadowing, bulk and scale, whilst providing a construction tolerance to the maximum height limit.
The proposal complies with the solar access provisions of THDCP as the private open space within the subject property and that on adjoining properties receives the minimum sunlight required of four hours.
Subject to the amendments made, the design of the dwelling will not result in any unreasonable overshadowing, privacy or bulk and scale impacts to adjoining properties.
The proposed development is considered to have minimal impact on the surrounding locale and neighbouring properties as it has been designed to comply with the DCP objectives.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 91
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Impact on privacy and overlooking on the adjoining properties from the upper floors of the development.
The proposal was amended considering privacy and overlooking from the upper floors of the dwelling to the adjoining properties.
The windows within the development have been designed to comply with the privacy controls outlined in Clause 2.14.9 of The Hills Shire Council Residential Development Control Plan, Part B – Section 2.
Privacy measures have been employed within the proposed design which includes highlight window sills measuring 1.8 metres in height when measured from the finished floor level (FFL), fixed external privacy screening to windows and balconies, and lower ground floor windows to be obscured by boundary fencing.
The proposed front balcony is orientated to the front of the site which overlooks the street and front yards of the neighboring properties. Fixed privacy screening measures have been implemented in the design of the balcony considering the concerns raised. The upper floor balcony incorporates two 1.5 metre high privacy screens to the sides of the balcony when measured from the (FFL) in an effort to minimise overlooking and maintain amenity to the neighbouring properties (See Attachment 4 - Elevations).
In this regard, the proposal will not result in unreasonable privacy impacts upon the adjoining properties.
The provision of a three (3) storey dwelling is not in consistent with dwellings in the locale and is not complementary to the existing streetscape.
Whilst it is noted that the surrounding properties located within the streetscape of Savoy Ct consist of either single or double storey developments (See Attachment 7 - Photos), the proposed three storey development complies with the development controls and LEP height control.
The dwelling design was amended to provide an increased side setback of 1.5 metres from the original design, considering it consists of a lower basement level which comprises of a garage, entry hallway, gym area and staircase providing access to the upper floors of the dwelling. As such, the development is characterised as a three storey dwelling.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 92
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Despite the above, the proposed design features provide architectural relief and visual interest to the dwelling façade. It is considered that the development as proposed will be of a high visual quality and will complement and enhance the streetscape.
The schedule of colours and materials selected for the facades of the development have been designed to be visually subservient and non- reflective which is considered appropriate in the content of the streetscape and in keeping with character of the area.The proposal is not considered to result in any unreasonable impact in this regard and is therefore considered a suitable outcome for the site.
The appearance of the development resembling a mini apartment which is not in keeping with existing character of this area.
The new development is of a different architectural style to the prevailing character in the street.
Despite the comments stating that the development resembles an apartment, it is interconnected to form one sole occupancy dwelling which has been conditioned accordingly as part of the Development Consent.
The bulk and scale of the development has been significantly reduced throughout the assessment process to reduce its dominance upon the streetscape, despite being considered as a three storey development which is permissible within the zoning subject to LEP height compliance.
The proposal will not result in an unreasonable impact on the streetscape or the amenity of the adjoining residences, nor will it result in any unreasonable overshadowing and privacy impacts.
Concerns regarding potential nuisance throughout construction of development as its locality is situated near the entrance of the cul-de-sac.
Construction noise, dust and waste are an inevitable consequence of development work.
Conditions of consent relating to noise, erosion
& sediment controls, stabilised access and dust controls have been recommended including conditions relating to ‘Hours of Work’ required to be adhered to throughout the construction phase, including all site management requirements.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 93
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Due to the scale of the proposed development it is anticipated that a road closure would not be required within Savoy Court to facilitate works, apart from typical road opening permits and crossing applications.
The provision for off street parking. The proposed development will allow for ample off street parking within the subject site. The dwelling design incorporates a double garage measuring 6.1 metres by 5.6 metres complying with the Car Parking and Vehicular Access outlined in Clause 2.14.14 of the Residential Development Control Plan (THDCP), Part B – Section 2.
Due to the scale of the proposal it is considered that on-street parking availability would not be significantly altered. In fact, additional off street car parking will be provided within the property compared with the current development on the site.
The subdivision approved DA 1108/2017/ZA has generated subsequent departure from lot sizing.
The minimum lot size control under LEP 2012 and DCP 2012 has been approved as part of the subdivision DA 1108/2017/ZA.
The lot sizing is unable to be altered as part of the current Development Application. Despite the above, the proposed dwelling and associated hard stand areas on the lot achieves compliance with Clause 2.14.9 of the Residential Development Control Plan (THDCP), Part B – Section 2.
A maximum 60% site coverage and 40%
landscape area is required on the site. As the subject allotment is currently one parcel of land, the site coverage of the proposed dwelling and associated hard stand areas equates to 20.8%.
The proposal also complies with the minimum site coverage requirement for Proposed Lot 1 approved under the Subdivision DA 1108/2017/ZA, detailing a 52% site coverage and 48% landscape area.
Concerns raised regarding C.2.2 Streetscape and Character Part B, Section 2 – Residential.
Land to which section C.2.2 relates to is the Hunterford Estate, Oatlands. The proposed development is not located within the map sheet/area and this section does not apply.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 94
ISSUE/OBJECTION COMMENT
Concerns raised regarding C.2.6 of Dwelling Design and Construction Part B, Section 2 – Residential regarding the introduction of a flat roof in lieu of a pitched roof will destroy the streetscape and character.
Land to which section C.2.6 relates to is the Hunterford Estate, Oatlands. The proposed development is not located within the map sheet/area and this section does not apply.
Concerns raised regarding C.4.6 of
Privacy- Part B, Section 2 – Residential. Land to which section C.4.6 relates to is the Gilroy College Target Site. The proposed development is not located within the map sheet/area and this section does not apply.
Concerns regarding Visual and Acoustic Part B, Section 2 – Residential. The proposal contains aspects that do not provide visual privacy to the private open space and pool contained within Lot 46 – 2 Savoy Ct.
The Residential Development Control Plan (THDCP), Part B – Section 2 states that that private open space and habitable rooms of proposed and existing adjacent dwellings should be reasonably protected from overlooking.
This has been considered in the design of the dwelling which should consider the location, size and design of windows and balconies, and the overall bulk and scale of the development.
Following design refinement, the above has been achieved via adequate privacy screening measures, increased setbacks to the boundaries, landscape tree screening to soften the impact of the development, highlight window sills and awning hung windows, etc. in an effort to limit views into adjoining private open spaces and recreational areas.
The introduction of a 1.5 metre high fixed privacy screen along the eastern elevation of the balcony and the careful consideration of the dimension/placement of upper floor windows along this elevation which includes staircase void windows, obscure glazed bathroom windows, upon the subject land has minimal impact on the views of residents and visitors within the locality and the visual privacy to the private open space and pool contained within Lot 46 – 2 Savoy Ct.
The proposal is considered satisfactory as it will not have an unreasonable overshadowing or privacy impacts on the neighbouring properties.
In this regard, minimal adverse privacy impacts would result from the proposed development.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 95 Landscaping shall be consistent with the
subdivision approved DA 1108/2017/ZA regarding the landscape strip required.
Landscaping has been incorporated into the proposed dwelling in addition to the Landscaping required as per approved Subdivision DA 1108/2017/ZA.
A 1 metre wide landscape strip is proposed for the length of the right of carriageway over Proposed Lot 1 (See Attachment 3 – Shadow Diagrams).
This addresses the concerns raised and satisfies Development Consent condition 4 of DA 1108/2017/ZA approved for the Subdivision creating the two residential lots.
Additional landscape screening is also proposed as part of the subject application in order to soften the impact of the development.Specific attention has been made to planting requirements on the site, i.e. minimum forty-five (45) litre pot size for planting are detailed as part of the landscape plan.
Conditions have been imposed for landscaping of the site to be carried out prior to issue of any Occupation Certificate to ensure all landscaping is provided and maintained at all times in accordance with THDCP Part C, Section 3 – Landscaping. Refer to Condition No; 42.
Concerns regarding the maximum building height of the proposal which utilises a flat roof design to be under the 9 metre permissible height limit.
The applicant has reduced the internal floor to ceiling heights (where possible) to comply with the maximum LEP height limit and to provide an increased construction tolerance to the height limit.
Dwellings are required to be sited so that their height does not detract from the use, appearance and enjoyment of adjoining spaces and dwellings, including the protection of solar access or privacy of adjoining neighbours.
The provision of a flat roof hidden by an 800mm parapet is not considered a non-compliance to the Residential Development Control Plan (THDCP), Part B – Section 2.
The proposed dwelling achieves full compliance with the LEP height controls and the maximum height will not result in unreasonable overshadowing as identified in the shadow diagrams (See Attachment 6 – Shadow Diagrams) and privacy impacts to neighbouring properties.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 96 Lot size reduction approved under
subdivision DA 1108/2017/ZA reduces the private open space of the allotment and the ability of the proposal to marginally pass the shadow test in winter.
Clause 2.14.10 of The Hills Shire Council Residential Development Control Plan, Part B – Section 2 states that dwellings be sited to allow for access of direct sunlight to at least 50% of the required private open space within the subject property and adjoining properties for a minimum of 4 hours between 9am and 3pm on June 21.
The private open space of the proposed development receives the minimum required solar access on June 21 within Proposed Lot 1 approved under the Subdivision DA 1108/2017/ZA.
The proposal complies with the solar access requirements as the private open space within the subject property and that on adjoining properties receives the minimum sunlight required. The proposal will not result in more than 50% of the required private open space of the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties receiving less than 4 hours of solar access between 9am and 3pm on June 21, which complies with the requirements of the DCP. The submitted shadow diagrams show that the subject property and the adjoining property would receive the required solar access between 9am and 12pm on 21 June (See Attachment 6 – Shadow Diagrams).
The proposal is inconsistent with the existing streetscape, is intrusive on private open space of adjoining properties and of a bulk and form that is offensive.
Whilst it is noted that the existing streetscape does not consist of newly established developments (See Attachment 7 - Photos), the proposed development has been designed to complement the existing streetscape.
It is not envisioned that the development will create a detrimental impact on the existing streetscape, as the bulk and scale of the development has been significantly reduced from the original design to incorporate in its revised form a staggered and articulated dwelling form which consists of numerous architectural features, recessed and projected facades, upper floor balconies, entry features and appropriate setbacks to the property boundaries.
The proposed dwelling is considered to be satisfactory in terms of its design and relationship to adjoining properties, and is not envisioned to unreasonably impact on the adjoining dwellings.
DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT UNIT MEETING 12 MARCH, 2019
PAGE 97 The proposed setback increases to the north eastern and north western boundaries results in a reduced dwelling width and reduces the overall bulk and scale of the development to ensure it is of a suitable scale so that it will not dominate the streetscape. The proposal achieves compliance with the building height, minimum setback controls, site coverage and landscaped area which regulate bulk and scale of new development.
The proposal complies with the objectives of the R2 zone and will maintain the residential character of the locality, whilst providing a modern dwelling to suit the owner’s needs.
ISSUE/OBJECTION - WITHDRAWN COMMENT Concerns regarding direct overlooking into
the rear yard of 6 Savoy Court due to the finished height of the third floor.
Whilst the proposal will be higher than the existing dwelling, it is not permitted to exceed the 9 metre maximum height limit specified under the (LEP).
With respect to privacy to the rear yard, the upper floor window on the first floor has been provided with a highlight window, measuring 1.8m in height from the finished floor level (FFL), and most of the lower ground floor windows will be obscured by a 1.8m high boundary fence (See Attachment 4 - Elevations).
In relation to the upper floor front balcony, although the front balcony is orientated to the front of the development, the revised design incorporates a fixed privacy screens to the sides of the balcony to minimise overlooking to the roof form of the adjacent dwelling and the rear yard.
Submission withdrawn by 6 Savoy Court based on the above on 7 August 2018.